What he did with 300 worked brilliantly in my mind (the original story didn't exactly have a ton of meat on its bones), and pound of pound for me, The Watchmen is both the most well executed and visually captivating super-hero flick there is.

Frankly, I couldn't have given two shits about a Superman flick, new or old, until now.

What he did with 300 worked brilliantly in my mind (the original story didn't exactly have a ton of meat on its bones), and pound of pound for me, The Watchmen is both the most well executed and visually captivating super-hero flick there is.

Snyder strikes me as a guy who's good at taking still imagery and putting it in motion (although I find he focuses too much on individual shots and not enough on how those shots fit into the larger fabric of a sequence and a film). I'd argue that Dawn of the Dead suffers least from this problem (save for a few slo-mo close-ups on shells discharging from shotguns, he seems more concerned with creating the fabric of the film at large). 300 and Watchmen, for all the latter's strengths, often feel like compiled money-shots extrapolated or straight-up xeroxed from the panels of the source novels.

I don't mean to trash the guy. Clearly he's got serious visual chops and can build a coherent narrative, but I've never felt like there was a passionate filmmaker with something of his own to say beyond showing us pretty pictures.

Color me underwhelmed.I didn't see anything in the Watchmen to suggest that Snyder is capable if realizing his own vision. Watchmen was like watching someone work with a multimillion dollar stack of tracing paper.

What he did with 300 worked brilliantly in my mind (the original story didn't exactly have a ton of meat on its bones), and pound of pound for me, The Watchmen is both the most well executed and visually captivating super-hero flick there is.

Snyder strikes me as a guy who's good at taking still imagery and putting it in motion (although I find he focuses too much on individual shots and not enough on how those shots fit into the larger fabric of a sequence and a film). I'd argue that Dawn of the Dead suffers least from this problem (save for a few slo-mo close-ups on shells discharging from shotguns, he seems more concerned with creating the fabric of the film at large). 300 and Watchmen, for all the latter's strengths, often feel like compiled money-shots extrapolated or straight-up xeroxed from the panels of the source novels.

I don't mean to trash the guy. Clearly he's got serious visual chops and can build a coherent narrative, but I've never felt like there was a passionate filmmaker with something of his own to say beyond showing us pretty pictures.

I have to disagree with that one. He's a brilliant visualist for certain, but I feel he's also got a deft and subtle hand, hidden all the better by the lack of subtlety in the material he chooses. Sure, Dawn of the Dead wasn't a message flick by any stretch, but there were underpinnings on 300 and The Watchmen that signified a guy who put a lot of his own thoughts in. How many people dismiss 300 outright as historically inaccurate guy-movie stupidity, when there's the whole underlying theme of true events turned into populist mythology. It wasn't present in Miller's original (and rather simplistic) telling, and it certainly added a layer to the film. As for the Watchmen, there's just as much going on in any frame of that flick as there was in classic examples of "world creation" like Blade Runner. The setting was created with a level of depth and reality that went well beyond the funnybook origins, and the final act, the largest change to Moore's narrative, was a stunner compared to the rather lackluster "monsterfight" of the book, and further cemented the film's purpose. In both cases we've got a guy who's taken source material and run with it. No other director in Hollywood could have made The Watchmen work on the level Snyder did.

Everything I've heard on Legend of the Guardians has been pretty positive as well, and Sucker Punch looks and sounds freaking amazing. I think he's one of the brightest up and comers of this generation of directors.

Jim_Thomas wrote:Color me underwhelmed.I didn't see anything in the Watchmen to suggest that Snyder is capable if realizing his own vision. Watchmen was like watching someone work with a multimillion dollar stack of tracing paper.

Pretty much everything you said can be applied just as well to Peter Jackson, yet he's treated as some kind of visionary. Snyder's 3-0 as far as I'm concerned. And I think his translation of Watchmen is so effective (despite its inevitable flaws) that it's easy to dismiss as having taken little creativity or effort whatsoever when, in fact, it was a monumental task and he handled it well. I'd rank Watchmen among the three or four best superhero adaptations ever made. Screw that. I'd rank it #2.

Steve T Power wrote:...and the final act, the largest change to Moore's narrative, was a stunner compared to the rather lackluster "monsterfight" of the book, and further cemented the film's purpose.

Word. For all the Moore fellating that happens among fanboys, the end of the comic book/graphic novel/whatever is lame. I've heard the argument that it was more appropriate to the milieu of the '80s than Snyder's ending, but I don't buy it. Snyder's is the ending that Moore should have thought of, but didn't. Cripes, it manages to take the concept of mutually assured destruction to a whole new level -- what's more appropriate to the US-Soviet arms race of the '80s than that? Moore's giant squid monster is a non sequitur that doesn't quite succeed in simultaneously paying off all of the movie's narrative threads and thematic elements.

Bottom line for me: The problem with every live action Superman movie we've seen so far (including Donner's original, which I love) is tone -- the Reeve movies stray too often into silly, and Singer's movie is straight-up emo from beginning to end. I think Snyder/Nolan/Goyer are likely to nail that part of the production. They can be relied on not to deliver cheesy comedy, and I'll be very surprised if we get a dour Dark Knight/Watchmen style Supes. I suspect they'll deliver a movie that respects who the character is, rather than trying to turn him into someone else. If the story's good (and has Christopher Nolan yet been involved in a project with a poor story?) and they assemble a good cast (have Nolan or Snyder ever made a movie with a poor cast?), then I think we'll have a winner.

Also, Zod is g*ddamn awesome, so what's the problem? Objecting to Zod in this reboot is like objecting to the Joker in The Dark Knight.

Jim_Thomas wrote:Color me underwhelmed.I didn't see anything in the Watchmen to suggest that Snyder is capable if realizing his own vision. Watchmen was like watching someone work with a multimillion dollar stack of tracing paper.

Pretty much everything you said can be applied just as well to Peter Jackson, yet he's treated as some kind of visionary. Snyder's 3-0 as far as I'm concerned. And I think his translation of Watchmen is so effective (despite its inevitable flaws) that it's easy to dismiss as having taken little creativity or effort whatsoever when, in fact, it was a monumental task and he handled it well. I'd rank Watchmen among the three or four best superhero adaptations ever made. Screw that. I'd rank it #2.

We'll have to disagree on this point. Despite their flaws, Jackson's Ring movies had an emotional weight that was utterly absent in Watchmen; the soul of Snyder's picture should have been the relationship between Dan and Laurie, but there was simply nothing there. I'll grant Snyder his technical achievement, but then again, you could say the same about George Lucas and his prequels. (Oh no you din't!!)

Also, Zod is g*ddamn awesome, so what's the problem? Objecting to Zod in this reboot is like objecting to the Joker in The Dark Knight.

Jim_Thomas wrote:Color me underwhelmed.I didn't see anything in the Watchmen to suggest that Snyder is capable if realizing his own vision. Watchmen was like watching someone work with a multimillion dollar stack of tracing paper.

Pretty much everything you said can be applied just as well to Peter Jackson, yet he's treated as some kind of visionary. Snyder's 3-0 as far as I'm concerned. And I think his translation of Watchmen is so effective (despite its inevitable flaws) that it's easy to dismiss as having taken little creativity or effort whatsoever when, in fact, it was a monumental task and he handled it well. I'd rank Watchmen among the three or four best superhero adaptations ever made. Screw that. I'd rank it #2.

We'll have to disagree on this point. Despite their flaws, Jackson's Ring movies had an emotional weight that was utterly absent in Watchmen

We'll definitely have to agree to disagree. Most of the emotional resonance of LotR comes from the source -- a quality absent in Moore's graphic novel. I never found the Laurie-Dan relationship all that compelling in the book. The Laurie-Dr. Manhattan relationship, on the other hand, is fairly dynamic and I thought Snyder captured that well. When they have it out on Mars, I thought it was as compelling as anything in LotR (and it didn't even have to resort to Gone with the Wind style overreaching speechifying or slow motion Hobbit pillow fights). I also think the movie does a fine job of capturing the middle-age malaise that is so important to the book. That may not deliver conventional histrionics, but I found it satisfying (perhaps because I'm, uh, middle aged).

...Warner Bros clearly has chosen a more macho leading man for Superman than the previous Brandon Routh or even Christopher Reeve. "He's got an amazing quality. He doesn't look too much like Reeve and Routh but he's big and strong and he has a very modern feel to him," a Warner Bros exec just told us. "We're really going to try and make Superman as contemporary as possible." And just like it did with Christian Bale in the Batman reboot, the studio has gone with a British actor. In fact, Cavill also auditioned for the Batman role but lost out to Bale in 2005. He also was a contender for James Bond but was deemed too young and lost out to Daniel Craig. Clearly, Cavill is a franchise waiting to happen. He also has a past with Superman. Before Bryan Singer came on to direct Superman Returns and cast Brandon Routh, Cavill had been one of the frontrunner choices for directers Brett Ratner and McG when they were going to helm the picture. That Superman was younger, and this time, the intention was to cast an actor near 30. Cavill, who will be 28 this year, was born in the Channel Islands and his film credits include The Count Of Monte Cristo.

I like it. He has the looks and the acting for it, but he's not similar looking to Chris Reeve or Brandon Routh (still wished he had a second chance). Good for a modernized Superman portrayal, and different enough from both actors.

And the fact that he's hot helps in his favor.

"Aliens conquering Earth would be fine with me, as long as they make me their queen."- Gillian Anderson

azul017 wrote:I like it. He has the looks and the acting for it, but he's not similar looking to Chris Reeve or Brandon Routh (still wished he had a second chance). Good for a modernized Superman portrayal, and different enough from both actors.

Plus, he's got the chin for the part. He's a great actor (unlike Routh) and he doesn't look like a complete tool. I think he'll be fine, but if Snyder has a tenth of a brain, he'll cast the right Lois. That killed the last movie more than anything,a wispy, wimpy, soft-spoken Lois. Think energy, attitude and brains, and no, she doesn't have to smoking hot, as Margot Kidder was certainly not, but she nailed the role.

"I ain't a boy, no I'm a man, and I believe in the Promised Land"-Coming to the USA on January 20, 2009!

I don't buy it though. Based solely on appearances he doesn't look like super man to me. Superman is supposed to look like the average joe. As Clark Kent he blends in, or is even a little overlooked. This guy looks to me like someone from a WB teen movie.

Can he act?

-Marshall-
Nun sacciu, nun vidi, nun ceru e si ceru durmiv.I know nothing, I see nothing, I wasn't there,
and if I was there, I was asleep.

mkiker2089 wrote:I don't buy it though. Based solely on appearances he doesn't look like super man to me. Superman is supposed to look like the average joe. As Clark Kent he blends in, or is even a little overlooked. This guy looks to me like someone from a WB teen movie.

Can he act?

Cavill's 27 -- and yes, he can act. See The Tudors if you don't believe me.

"Aliens conquering Earth would be fine with me, as long as they make me their queen."- Gillian Anderson

I never thought of Superman or Clark Kent as average Joe looking......he kinda looks like a male model/bodybuilder who has always been drawn as a guy that the chicks would drool over...Hardly an average joe..

mkiker2089 wrote:I don't buy it though. Based solely on appearances he doesn't look like super man to me. Superman is supposed to look like the average joe. As Clark Kent he blends in, or is even a little overlooked.

He may look 'average' from a Hollywood POV (and that's really stretching it and only applied to the Clark Kent look), but even in the comics Kent/Supes was meant to embody the all-American ideals... and good looks were key to how America viewed itself.

I haven't read the comics. I was just basing my assumption of his apperance on

1- he's never been played by body builders or GAP models in the past2- he's supposed to be average enough looking that no one recognizes him as Clark Kent even though he looks like superman without glasses.

Of course we all realize that what he looks like isn't as important as how he acts, which is even less important than how good the movie is around him.

-Marshall-
Nun sacciu, nun vidi, nun ceru e si ceru durmiv.I know nothing, I see nothing, I wasn't there,
and if I was there, I was asleep.

mkiker2089 wrote:I haven't read the comics. I was just basing my assumption of his apperance on

1- he's never been played by body builders or GAP models in the past2- he's supposed to be average enough looking that no one recognizes him as Clark Kent even though he looks like superman without glasses.

But you are familiar with what Superman looks like, correct? Because, regardless of your arbitrary litmus test, Superman is a character who has existed for 80 years in a variety of visual media. We all have a pretty good idea of what he looks like. How does Cavill not look like Superman? He's not a bodybuilder (muscular, yes, but lean -- in fact, he'll probably need to pack on a little muscle mass for the role); and he's too traditionally masculine (read: not pretty enough) to be a GAP model type. He's certainly more rugged than either Routh or Reeve. The dude looks about as much like Superman as you can sans a red cape and a spit curl.

Steve T Power wrote:What he did with 300 worked brilliantly in my mind (the original story didn't exactly have a ton of meat on its bones),.

Steve, I almost fell off my chair when I read that. Each to their own, and cinema needs a mix of genres including action, but I have never left a cinema feeling angrier than after 300. What a wasted opportunity. Make an action film by all means, but please don't spoil something splendid. I would have bet a large sum of money that no one could have made the fascinating story of Thermopylae boring, silly and embarrassing to watch, but Zach Snyder managed it by choosing to base his screenplay on Frank Miller's pathetic "comic" instead of far better versions of the story (e.g. Stephen Pressfield's "Gates of Fire" or - here's a thought - the events as sketchily described by some chap called Herodotus). As a result, the film depicts a laughably sub-tabloid newspaper version of the Spartan way of life, and it completely misses the point about the Spartan mentality which we can reasonably suppose lay behind their decision to fight against hopeless odds. The unrecognisable portrayals of Xerxes, the Immortals and Ephialtes are too embarrassing even to be excused as caricatures. The quality of the dialogue and most of the acting are too painful to write about.

Sorry to take this thread away from "Superman", but any mention of the ghastly "300" puts me in rant mode!

Steve T Power wrote:What he did with 300 worked brilliantly in my mind (the original story didn't exactly have a ton of meat on its bones),.

Steve, I almost fell off my chair when I read that. Each to their own, and cinema needs a mix of genres including action, but I have never left a cinema feeling angrier than after 300. What a wasted opportunity. Make an action film by all means, but please don't spoil something splendid. I would have bet a large sum of money that no one could have made the fascinating story of Thermopylae boring, silly and embarrassing to watch, but Zach Snyder managed it by choosing to base his screenplay on Frank Miller's pathetic "comic" instead of far better versions of the story (e.g. Stephen Pressfield's "Gates of Fire" or - here's a thought - the events as sketchily described by some chap called Herodotus). As a result, the film depicts a laughably sub-tabloid newspaper version of the Spartan way of life, and it completely misses the point about the Spartan mentality which we can reasonably suppose lay behind their decision to fight against hopeless odds. The unrecognisable portrayals of Xerxes, the Immortals and Ephialtes are too embarrassing even to be excused as caricatures. The quality of the dialogue and most of the acting are too painful to write about.

Sorry to take this thread away from "Superman", but any mention of the ghastly "300" puts me in rant mode!

300 was never meant to be anything but epic fable writ large. I've read Gates of Fire, and seen The 300 Spartans, and as much as i'm not much of a Frank Miller fan (outside of Ronin and his early Wolverine stuff), i really dug his take on Thermopylae. I thought Snyder did a fantastic job of making a visually captivating and high energy take on Miller's funnybook that worked much better than the source material. What you found boring, silly, and embarrassing, I found inventive, energetic, and hugely entertaining. No, it ain't a history lesson, but I think it deserves what acclaim it gets.

See. If one stops a moment to take a breath before making a snap judgment what is happening some things end up being revealed. Yes Lois is going to be in the film. No, none of the actresses named would appear to be up for that role.

"The most dementing of all modern sins: the inability to distinquish excellence from success."-David Hare

Though I know it's a futile hope, I pray that Nolan, Goyer and Snyder can resist the urge to go back to Zod, or Ursa, or the whole renegade Kryptonian thing. Use Lex Luthor, or Braniac, or Metallo (cyborg terrorist/assassin version), or Bizarro (Luthor's imperfect clone version), or Doomsday, or Darkseid, or any of a hundred villains that weren't Kryptonians featured in the Christopher Reeve movies. I love Terrance Stamp's Zod too, but I'd love something fresh a whole lot more.

Dunnyman wrote:http://blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/798-diane-lane-is-supermans-momDiane Lane as Ma Kent? This thing is starting to get interesting, what with Annette O'Toole reset the bar as a fairly attractive Ma Kent, but now we're veering into downright smoking hotness. Me like.

PERFECT! She's gorgeous, has the smartass/sarcastic/energetic vibe that makes Lois Lois, and she's got the some chops. While some insist on sticking 100% to the comics, is there anything that says Lois can't be a redhead?

"I ain't a boy, no I'm a man, and I believe in the Promised Land"-Coming to the USA on January 20, 2009!

PERFECT! She's gorgeous, has the smartass/sarcastic/energetic vibe that makes Lois Lois, and she's got the some chops. While some insist on sticking 100% to the comics, is there anything that says Lois can't be a redhead?